And BTW, do you count that as a 'public appearance'? I am not sure.. Did anyone, public or media, barring those inside the cathedral see her? NOOOO
Her 'final public appearance' was recommissioning of HMS Ark Royal in Portsmouth, I believe- atleast the last one I saw on TV/Youtube. SHe apparently attended some races and presented trophies also..

Just a point here - I know this thread is yonks old but as it has come back up I did some re-reading back through the thread and came across this question about The Queen Mum and Margaret's funeral.

Yes she did attend - she is listed in the Court Circular as attending and it was definitely her last official engagement. It should be noted that the CC lists the family of Margaret specifically but not the children of The Queen attending their aunts funeral - it says 'and other members of the royal family' were present while everyone was listed at the funeral of The Queen Mother. I liked the fact that Viscount Linley and his sister were specified above people like Charles etc as they were, of course, Margaret's children.

Another thing I found interesting was how often she changed her lady-in-waiting during the last four weeks or so of her life - about every five days and every time it was listed in the CC.

it'll be King William V.
i know that for a fact... Queen Victoria's uncle Was King William IV

Yes, third son of George III. Ruled after George IV. Had ten illegitamite children with his long time mistress, but with his wife Queen Adelaide, only two short lived daughters. Was said to have been faithful to his wife, and extremely hard working. Started the tradition of living Buckingham palace, and donated a great deal of art to the nation for public galleries.

Yes, third son of George III. Ruled after George IV. Had ten illegitamite children with his long time mistress, but with his wife Queen Adelaide, only two short lived daughters. Was said to have been faithful to his wife, and extremely hard working. Started the tradition of living Buckingham palace, and donated a great deal of art to the nation for public galleries.

William IV didn't live at BP but stayed at CH throughout his reign.

He went so far as to offer BP to Parliament as a replacement for the Palace of Westminster when it burnt down in 1834.

This is a little late in the discussion but Ish is quite correct when she says -
"As for George, he came to the throne during a crisis. His name choice didn't necessarily reflect his feelings regarding his name but rather a desire to stress the connection with his father."

I believe that it was a deliberate political decision at the time to identify the new king with his father, George V, in an attempt to remind people of the stability of the throne after the chaos and uncertainty and unpopularity of Edward's abdication. Bertie, I suspect, had little choice, and was too overwhelmed by his new role to object.

Charles reportedly said, years ago, that he regards becoming Charles III as 'unlucky'. I really don't understand why - Charles II 'won', as it were, in the end, despite his slack moral character. I suppose that 'our' Charles is thinking of the disarray and civil war of the Stuart years. However, as Juliet said of Romeo:

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet

I'd like him to stick with Charles - after all this time I think that it suits him.

"Charles III" is considered unlucky because it was the styling used by Charles Stewart, eldest son of the Old Pretender.

Does this mean the name Charles is off the lists for kings-to-come, because III is unlucky and they can't skip to IV?
I would like it if he'd rule as King Charles, but that's mainly because he's so well known with that name..

They can't skip to IV. If they do that then it implies that Charles Stewart was the III and therefore a rightful ruler.

I don't think this means that Charles isn't allowable as a monarch's name. Obviously, HM and the DoE didn't think it was much of an issue as they chose to name their eldest son Charles, knowing he would one day be monarch.

If memory serves, Charles himself hasn't actually gone on record saying that he doesn't like his name, considers it unlucky, or intends to reign as anything other than Charles. There's been a lot of press speculation about it throughout Charles' life, but he has never said what he plans on doing when it happens - the official stance as of 2005 was "[n]o decision has been made and it will be made at the time."

I don't know who would sincerely consider the name to be "unlucky". This is the kind of stuff that the tabloids like to stir up, but for the average person Charles III would probably seem the logical choice and be accepted for what it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee-Z

Does this mean the name Charles is off the lists for kings-to-come, because III is unlucky and they can't skip to IV?
I would like it if he'd rule as King Charles, but that's mainly because he's so well known with that name..

I don't know who would sincerely consider the name to be "unlucky". This is the kind of stuff that the tabloids like to stir up, but for the average person Charles III would probably seem the logical choice and be accepted for what it is.

Its been pretty apparent over Charles' lifetime that he is quite a traditionalist so I would really like to see Charles bring back something that's been put to the side for a very long, long time. Heck with the III stuff and bring back the days of Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror and choose the regnal name of Charles the Green. Frogs everywhere would be ecstatic (especially the species named after Charles) and perhaps at the coronation Kermit the Frog could sing "Its Not Easy Being Green".

I know I've stated this a few times before but there's folks here that perhaps haven't read the entire thread. On the serious side though, I am willing to bet that he will be known as King Charles III.

__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon

I don't know who would sincerely consider the name to be "unlucky". This is the kind of stuff that the tabloids like to stir up, but for the average person Charles III would probably seem the logical choice and be accepted for what it is.

Anyone who knows their history, specifically their Scottish history.

Charles Stewart, eldest son of the Old Pretender, was the last Jacobite pretender to really fight for the throne. Charles lead a disastrous campaign against the Hanovers to fight for his throne, ended up fleeing for his life from the battle, and abandoned Scotland to face horrific reprisals from the British for their involvement in the rising. His title, according to Jacobites? Charles III.

I do believe that when his time comes Charles will reign as Charles III, and I think it would be silly of him to change his name at this point - he's been known as Charles for far too long to change it at this point. But I wouldn't blatantly dismiss the idea of the name being unlucky, especially as there does seem to be an indication that the BRF can be a superstitious lot.

Its been pretty apparent over Charles' lifetime that he is quite a traditionalist so I would really like to see Charles bring back something that's been put to the side for a very long, long time. Heck with the III stuff and bring back the days of Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror and choose the regnal name of Charles the Green. Frogs everywhere would be ecstatic (especially the species named after Charles) and perhaps at the coronation Kermit the Frog could sing "Its Not Easy Being Green".

I know I've stated this a few times before but there's folks here that perhaps haven't read the entire thread. On the serious side though, I am willing to bet that he will be known as King Charles III.

I don't think Charles could give himself a cognomen, those seem to more be nicknames that others (or history) develop.

Even if he did get a cognomen, he would still have a number. William the Conqueror might be commonly known as such, but he's also William I. I'm pretty sure some of the pre-Norman monarchs were numbered as well when names went into duplicates, they're just better known by the cognomens than the numbers. In the post-Norman era, it eventually just became easier to remember the monarchs by their numbers than cognomens because there were so many. I believe it wasn't until Edward III that the numbering became more common - but really, he was the third consecutive Edward, so the numbering would have just made it easier to remember, although I do wonder what some of the post-Edward III would have been known as had the idea continued.

And may have another 20 years to go if his grandmother is any indicator!

Although 20 years is kind of stretching it, another 10-12 years is very much possible. Charles is a man that has lived all his adult life as the heir to the throne and actually had to carve out a role as Prince of Wales for himself. In my eyes, he's done a very fine job of things and has accomplished far more than perhaps any PoW before him. In the history books of the future, I think more will be written and remembered about Charles' time as the heir (excluding the drama of his private life) rather than his time as the King. With this in mind, I think should he choose a different regnal name such as George or Louis or Kermit, it would become an identity that might have people in the future scratching their heads and saying "Who?" rather than a name that would resonate his reign and lifetime service to the Crown.

IMO, Charles' reign will not be a long one but more of a transitional reign between Elizabeth II and William VI.

__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon

Although 20 years is kind of stretching it, another 10-12 years is very much possible. Charles is a man that has lived all his adult life as the heir to the throne and actually had to carve out a role as Prince of Wales for himself. In my eyes, he's done a very fine job of things and has accomplished far more than perhaps any PoW before him. In the history books of the future, I think more will be written and remembered about Charles' time as the heir (excluding the drama of his private life) rather than his time as the King. With this in mind, I think should he choose a different regnal name such as George or Louis or Kermit, it would become an identity that might have people in the future scratching their heads and saying "Who?" rather than a name that would resonate his reign and lifetime service to the Crown.

IMO, Charles' reign will not be a long one but more of a transitional reign between Elizabeth II and William VI.

I remember back before Charles married. People were freaked out that he was as old as he was and not working on an heir. And as I remember it, he struggled with carving out a role for himself. Which is not to say that his mother did not also struggle with his role as well.
In hindsight, he did his children a favor by waiting to marry, and by giving them the room to marry in their own time. He, of all people, could understand the weight that waiting and place-holding carries. I give him a lot of credit for that.

IMO, Charles' reign will not be a long one but more of a transitional reign between Elizabeth II and William VI.

IMHO with the recent threat of his interfering letters about to come out, He may not have that...just as well. A young heir and beautiful fertile wife the people are behind is what the BRF needs, not Charles who is married to a woman that poll after poll does not want as Queen. This board has a determined Queen Camilla faction which is not supported by the numbers on the polls of the actual subjects.